Callahan v. Oltarsh

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Callahan v. Oltarsh

109 N.Y.S. 753

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 10, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 109 N.Y.S. 753 (Callahan v. Oltarsh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Callahan v. Oltarsh, 109 N.Y.S. 753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

DAYTON, J.

The evidence is clear that “David M. Oltarsh Iron Works, Incorporated,” employed the driver of the truck, and that the name of “David M. Oltarsh Iron Works, Incorporated,” was painted on the truck, and that at the place of business where the plaintiff called before bringing this suit was a large sign “David Oltarsh Iron Works, Incorporated.” The fact that a corporation by that name existed appeared by uncontradicted oral testimony without objection. The claimed admission of defendant that he owned the truck and employed the driver is a forced construction of language, which could not have misled plaintiff, when by inquiry he might have readily ascertained that Mr. Oltarsh was referring to his company.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DAYTON, J.

The evidence is clear that “David M. Oltarsh Iron Works, Incorporated,” employed the driver of the truck, and that the name of “David M. Oltarsh Iron Works, Incorporated,” was painted on the truck, and that at the place of business where the plaintiff called before bringing this suit was a large sign “David Oltarsh Iron Works, Incorporated.” The fact that a corporation by that name existed appeared by uncontradicted oral testimony without objection. The claimed admission of defendant that he owned the truck and employed the driver is a forced construction of language, which could not have misled plaintiff, when by inquiry he might have readily ascertained that Mr. Oltarsh was referring to his company.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.Y.S. 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callahan-v-oltarsh-nyappterm-1908.